However according to earlier in the exegesis (and the apoc that preceded it), there was no x modifier for perl 6 regexen, and even if there were, it would be at the front of the RE, not the back. Am i forgetting a feature?

jynx

PS i have already e-mailed O'Reilly Net about it, but it doesn't seem changed, so this seems a reasonable place to inform TheDamian, get his opinion (if i'm in error), and whore for XP :-)

You do indeed seem right on most of those points, Jured, but there's a couple that bear a closer look. I'm sure > doesn't need to be escaped when not inside a <> construction (just like the HTML I'm writing now, which is rather interesting, in a cool meta- sort of way, but I'm going off on a tangent)... but in that case, I'd escape it anyway, for parallelism. As to the last point, the meaning of $ did indeed change, and he meant $$, not $, since that is a newline in the middle of the string.

Update: As Juerd rightly points out, there is a distinction between a grammer and a class, and their rules and methods. However, the same syntax is used to call a rule from a grammer, as a grammer can inherit from other grammer(s), delegate to other grammers, and possibly even autogenerate rules. In these cases, the rule needs to be treated as a method call.

Cheers,
Erik

Light a man a fire, he's warm for a day. Catch a man on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchet

I think you're right, it's just a typo. Your reasoning (no /x modifier, and modifiers at the front) is my understanding as well. Keep an eye on the page, it'll probably be fixed as soon as TheDamian has a chance to look at it.

I could swear I posted this same writeup once already, but it appears to have disappeared....